The Great Debate Thread - ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK!

[Lighthawk]

Taking your last bit and sticking it up top, because I think it might be the most important part for us to reach an understanding of each other's views, and certainly will provide context for a lot of what I have to say

Thank you for actually taking your time to debate with me . I do feel the need to point out a disagreement in our general terms, though. I, for one, consider that a nation's history is an important part of it and that it should be accepted as it is, both good and bad. Whereas from what I can tell you consider it to be something that should not be thought of that much. Is it because of the particular topic in discussion, or a general opinion? Either way, it kind of affects the basic premise of the discussion, given that by denying a link between a leader's decision and the past and the country of the present 90% of the my original premise would be deemed irrelevant.

My views on history: It is important and a good thing to know. Looking at a nation's history can most certainly help you to understand them, to see what they had to deal with can show how they became what they are today.

However, what happened in the past, well happened in the past. I would never hold a person responsible for anything they had no power to control, most especially events that occurred before they were even born.

Nope. But it is part of your history.

Indeed it is, and I'll never deny that. But first, see above. Second, shouldn't any nation, like any person, be recognized as having the potential to change who they are, even at the most basic levels?

TBH, the emotional aspect was mentioned because, well, apparently it really is easier to talk when you're on the other side of the bombs.

I have to admit, I can't truly claim to understand, but I can imagine.

I don't see how this situation relates. It really was just a sidenote. One little sidenote, in which one person who probably never even heard of my country willingly gave it away. it was not a non-negotiable aspect, it was just that Roosevelt was unable(or unwilling) to do so. Do you consider morally accept that such a subclause in their contract was just accepted?

I can consider the idea that it wasn't given much thought. The war was over and no one was keen to see any hostility restarted, something which Stalin took great advantage of to grab up whatever he could.

I could also consider the idea that Roosevelt went into those meetings with his eye on the big picture, and knew he'd have to make some deals he might not have liked.

I'm fairly sure they were very well aware of the monster they were creating.

I honestly doubt it. They were aware they had made a weapon of great power, but everything I've ever read has suggested that they had no idea about the long term effects of the radiation, and I doubt anyone could have had the clairvoyance needed to foresee the cold war situation that would arise from it's creation.

And yes, bombing was the norm. But lord knows there had been enough of that by then. Japan had absolutely nothing to fight back with, aside from the occasional desperate kamikaze who missed most of the times anyway. Unless you find a better source than what I did, Hiroshima is estimated to have between 90,000 and 140,000 casualties, whilst the second greatest casualty per bombing (aside from nagasaki) is estimated at almost 50,000 in Hamburg. That's double. And it's not a mid-war everyone-is-bombing-everyone situation, it was a bombing on a country in ruins. It was a country left without allies, without resources, without fighting power, without anything. And call me a conspiracy theorist, but seriously. Truman does justify his own actions as revenge for Pearl Harbor. A 2000(iirc, correct me if I'm wrong) toll versus a 200.000 toll(both bombs) is not really comparable.

The problem is that Japan still intended to fight. They had been offered terms of surrender, and rejected them. And after the lengths they had demonstrated they would go to in order to fight (kamikaze attacks for example), they needed to be made to surrender, or they would have kept fighting. Aside from all the other reasons that people have listed for using the bombs, there was consideration for the fact that Russia was getting ready to invade Japan. That was considered unacceptable, and would have resulted in more of Stalin demanding land for his aid. Taken as a whole, the bombing probably was the lesser of the evils to choose from. It saved more lives than it cost, it ended the war in days instead of further months, and it denied Russia a claim on Japanese land. It is a cold and heartless decision, but so are most of the choices made in war, because that is the horrible nature of warfare.

As for the bombs being revenge...I'd call that something between self rationalization and pure bullshit, but it would have been the right kind of bullshit for appeasing the American people at the time. Whatever kind of added excuses Truman needed to pile on, for his own conscious or for the approval of the people, it doesn't change the fact that using the bombs was the sound military strategy for the situation.

Meh, I don't bother with what was what theories too much, actually. Basically about the size and effect, I think. The fact that Truman reffered to the bombs in a public announcement as an experiment might've helped propagate the general idea.

Forgive me, but if you intent to propagate an idea, wouldn't it be prudent to fully understand that idea? Otherwise you are just spouting dogma "it is because I was told it was so."

Wait what?

Exactly what I said, based on my views of responsibility outlined at the start of this post. Truman made the choice to use the bombs, and Truman alone. As such, there is no one alive today who had any responsibility for that choice, thus it is grievously unfair to use the atomic bombing of Japan as an example of why one should hate/distrust/lack faith in America.

So how is that any different from hating on the Americans for the atomic bombs?

Clearly the irony was missed. As for the bombings, see above.

Japan's attack on pearl harbor was a tactical

Strategic actually, but that's terminology nitpicking, so you don't have to take this individual response seriously.

move, flawed though it was, before the war had a chance to have an effect on the Americans(yes, I know that technically the war hadn't started yet).

The war started in 39, PH was in 41.

Japan had already been subdued by that point, after enduring a few years of war.

No, not really. Japan was going quite strong still. It wasn't until 42 that they really started to be worn down.

With a much lower general population, ergo a much lower military population, after years of losing a significant part of it already, a friggin atomic bomb is just uncalled for. That's sheer cruelty.

As outlined above, I have to disagree. It was not cruelty, it was merely cold calculation. Had the war continued by conventional means alone, neither city would have been spared, they merely would have been destroyed slower.

Well, sure, i could've gone on about how america has become a symbol for consumerism and bla bla bla, but I'm sure everyone is aware of that.

Wouldn't argue that.

At least where I'm from, the war-hungry attitude and such events are what made sure to impregnate the hate over the years. Though all the countries did their share of evil during the wars, America stood out. And it was on purpose.

Clarification please: It was on purpose that we stood out? You mean we purposely made ourselves stand out more?

And believe it or not, but we're really not war-hungry. We're just stubborn, wildly involved in world affairs, and quick to hit back.

Though i do not question your country's freedom of speech, I am doubting its honesty in speech. Also, its attention span(yes, this happens everywhere. But most countries don't pride themselves with their freedom. Makes it stand out, you know?).

Depends on which part of us you're listening to. A lot of major news groups, yeah they're full of shit. And we know it. What's more, they know we know. And they accept it because they're looking to get viewers, because more viewers means more money, and they're banking on getting those viewers (thus money) by telling certain groups what they want to hear. I only trust any news I can get the same take on from at least three different news organizations. Our major news groups do suck, I will admit that.

I'm not sure how attention span ties into freedom of speech though, can you elaborate?

Because North Korea is a dictatorship and people are not allowed to think for themselves. In America, you do not have your leader's opinion shoved into your brain from birth to death. You are allowed to think. Just like I judge any young person in my country who supports the extremes, though I am not quick to judge an old man who was in the Communist party during the Communist era. During a dictatorship, an individual has no say, but during a democracy the leader appointed by the majority IS the majority. No?

Eh, to a point they are. You have to keep in mind, we have a two party system. Okay yeah, there are other parties technically, but they never win and might as well not be there. The results of this have best been shown recently by the 2004 Bush vs Kerry election. A lot of people didn't want either of them, but they were our choices and thus a lot of people voted not based on who they wanted more, but who they wanted less. We might get to vote, but by and large, it's multiple choice, not free answer. Still better than a lot of places, but it still can and does lead to us getting leaders we don't want, don't like, and wish were different. It's a great system compared to things like dictatorships.

Definitely not the only evil. But at the moment you are by far the largest country

3rd actually, by population. 3rd or 4th by area, depending on what you consider as truly part of the country.

and the most eager to join up in whatever war is going on(seriously, how many wars has America participated in just the past century?). It does stand out, and it does affect the public opinion.

We've been in our fair share for sure, but I think you underestimate how many wars have been fought. Consider the following
Timeline of major 20th century wars
Biggest wars of the 20th century by death tolls
Major wars of the 20th century

Honestly, we're just more noticeable.

Well, who do you have a better opinion of? A guy that was good for 50 years then decided to rob a bank(usually out of poverty, mind you), or a guy that spent his whole life getting in trouble that ends up robbing the same bank?

The first obviously, but also that's a loaded question due to its phrasing, and I have to deny several assumptions that are part of it.

It's only natural. When having such events spread out, they do not have such an effect on one's image. Sure, WW2 was shit, but hey, we've had this country give us good musicians/art/technology/philosophy/whatnot for centuries! On the other hand, the US isn't exactly making itself well-known for the great things it brings to humanity. It's a sort of required balance, I guess?

Well ouch, are we really seen as contributing so little? Well here, some major technological contributions owed to Americans.
-The GPS system
-An enormous slew of things from NASA, such as bar coding, the memory foam used in some mattresses, invisible braces, many types of ergonomically designed furniture and equipment, some modern water purification methods, smoke detectors, many types of prosthetic limbs owe their designs and material make up to NASA, and so many more things NASA actually has a magazine detailing them regularly.
-Personal Computers
-A goodly chunk of the ground work for the Internet
-Commercially viable incandescent and florescent lights
-The commercialization of the production/assembly line
-Airplanes

And that's just off the top of my head.

Good point. I will answer this tomorrow morning though, as I'll need more time to pinpoint my facts=). (it's been years since I did US history)

I'm none too fresh on it either, but I'll give it my best. Whenever you're ready.

Yes. Though ironically the norwegian bombings was what got me thinking about this subject recently. (or more precisely about how the early news pinned him as Muslim before the mugshot came out)

Alright then, to the question at hand...no, I think the individuals in question would be the target of the hunt, as would anyone connected to them and supporting them.

Your hypothetically however puts an unfair slant on the actual events. We did not go Muslim hunting after 9/11, we went after Al-Qaeda and those who were actively funding and supporting them to be a terrorist organization. I will admit to having regret, distaste, and some shame at the actions and attitudes of some of my fellow Americans towards Muslims afterwards; it is embarrassing to hear some of the idiots shouting their all encompassing ignorant bigotry. However our military forces were not just rolling into any and all Muslim nations/cities/settlements and indiscriminately killing everyone there. I'm sure we made some mistakes, had bad intel, had mishaps, but we had a designated target, and did our best to limit ourselves to them.

It's not about being perfect. It's about saying you're off to "liberate" a place by bombing the shit out of it till they yield to whatever it is you want. And bombing for peace. And such propaganda which I thought was only theoretical(though this debate, particularly the hiroshima was out of mercy part, made me sad in realizing that it might be working). It's about claiming you are "ending the war" in an act which seems more like "look mates. big boom. we got big boom. they mess with us. we mess with them and their little doggies too. ".

This is such a broad generalization that I can't honestly comment back on it. If you could provide examples of of our "liberations" and "bombing for peace" and such, I'll be happy to respond to those.

Though usually national propaganda stays within a country, the US has been quite...vocal about it. Extremely vocal. Did you know that during the communist era the us(the uk too, and a few other places) kept sending us messages of freedom? This was in an era where history wasn't told properly, and the dictator was modifying it to suit his need. people didn't know about the Tehran conference. They just knew the Americans and English were there to help them in need. Many swam to their death trying to reach the promised land...and they were sure to promise. It is just...cruel. There really is not other word for it. For all I care the North Koreans could be delusional in thinking what they have is freedom, when you bring such delusions to other countries you can't expect to not be judged afterwards.

Do you have any site you could link for the details of this, I'd be interested in reading it. Otherwise I just don't know enough to respond in anything but ignorance.

Meh, I'm usually on the pro side of Americans actually(yes, with these views). But at least from what people I've interacted with...yeah. That really is the general opinion. Worse, actually. (this addresses the last 2 paragraphs as well). I mean, sure, it would all be great to be flowers and pink once a particular event is done, but it's human nature to remember and generalize, and once you stand out so much everything you do ends up getting the spotlight.

I do understand, and I know my views on this are optimistic, but they are my views, and I must hope that others might accept them.

(think of the viral about the americans saying the Japanese people deserved the tsunami thanks to pearl harbor. sure, a very small minority, but it's always the awful minorities that get the spotlight).

If it helps, most Americans think those people are raving loonies. Please, keep in mind that they are a very vocal, very minority. We have over 300 million people in this country, and the majority of them can get online to spout their views worldwide. It's not hard to find at least few people here willing to vocalize any sort of opinion, no matter how factless, twisted, or just plain stupid it might be.

Similarly to how it's understandable for a Jew to have a strong hatred for Germans, to give an obvious example, you can understand how anyone who ended up under a US decision or, worse, bomb will feel about it.

I know, and I can't really say much to such a person other than to ask forgiveness and understanding, that not all our government does is by our blessing or will or even our knowledge.

By taking up the majority in military operations and bringing so much media attention to all the wrong things, it's almost a self-dug grave. By now I think it's safe to assume that a good part of the world found itself at the other end, and no one came out too well. Regardless of who started it, who wanted what and who else was involved, if the US was involved then you sure as hell know it's the US who is going to be remembered for it(something that your media accepts and relishes, and quite often it is because they do take up most part of the operation btw). They just stand out. And rarely in a good way.

Maybe we don't make the best impression, but that's all the more reason that I'm going to try. I honestly think we, as a whole, do mean well. We don't always get things done right, and I think a lot of us need lessons in humility and how not to act like an asshole, but I do think on a whole we can make a positive impact.

Also, despite the name of the thread being "The Great Debate", from square one there was very little debating and a lot of arguing.

On the contrary, I think me and Fen have been engaged in a very nice and rather thread filling debate.

[Fen]

(shortening the quote-heavyness for a bit).

A person definitely cannot be held responsible for actions happened before they were born, but a nation can be held responsible for its history. Perhaps the difference between an individual and a nation is far too well defined in my mind. And sure enough, there is always room for change, but I think(and I can't be the only one) that the founding of the US was the start of a pattern which has in the meantime made itself renown(reasoning, strategy and all that aside, the general populous will generally only remember "they were in many a wars").

I could also consider the idea that Roosevelt went into those meetings with his eye on the big picture, and knew he'd have to make some deals he might not have liked.

His eye on the big picture was indeed there, but it was very clouded. Whether by his own idealism, by his fondness for Stalin or by somehow ignoring the fact that was was best for America was not the best for the world(after all, world peace was his ultimate goal in his collaboration with Stalin...he just somehow failed to see Stalin as the dictator he was) or- most likely- a combination of these factors is up to debate, of course, but the end result is there. His condition at the time of the conferences was also a factor that made the compromises greater. But, looking back, it's hard to tell what was compromise and what was freely given.

I honestly doubt it. They were aware they had made a weapon of great power, but everything I've ever read has suggested that they had no idea about the long term effects of the radiation, and I doubt anyone could have had the clairvoyance needed to foresee the cold war situation that would arise from it's creation.

They knew it was a monster, though exactly how big of a monster they found out only afterwards.

The problem is that Japan still intended to fight. They had been offered terms of surrender, and rejected them. And after the lengths they had demonstrated they would go to in order to fight (kamikaze attacks for example), they needed to be made to surrender, or they would have kept fighting. Aside from all the other reasons that people have listed for using the bombs, there was consideration for the fact that Russia was getting ready to invade Japan. That was considered unacceptable, and would have resulted in more of Stalin demanding land for his aid. Taken as a whole, the bombing probably was the lesser of the evils to choose from. It saved more lives than it cost, it ended the war in days instead of further months, and it denied Russia a claim on Japanese land. It is a cold and heartless decision, but so are most of the choices made in war, because that is the horrible nature of warfare.

As for the bombs being revenge...I'd call that something between self rationalization and pure bullshit, but it would have been the right kind of bullshit for appeasing the American people at the time. Whatever kind of added excuses Truman needed to pile on, for his own conscious or for the approval of the people, it doesn't change the fact that using the bombs was the sound military strategy for the situation.

Yarr...Japan had started surrender proposals...just with the Soviets instead of the US, in an attempt of at least saving whatever little thing they could save. From their point of view the surrender process had already begun, though the rest of the world didn't get the memo... In a nation that had nothing BUT pride left at that point, taking their time before admitting defeat instead of jumping on their knees and begging for mercy seems reasonable. Biased? Perhaps. Basically, you have these three points of view(extremized, of course).
Japan: Ok, we're losing. Let's try to get the best out of it. Maybe if we wait out they forget! The Soviets seem to be willing to negociate. American scum should hear it from them. We too proud to deal with American scum directly.
Soviets: We have everything moving as we want it to be, get lots land and are making people focus on Japan whilst we get the upper hand. *twirl moustache*.
US: WHY ARE THEY TAKING THEIR TIME THE FRIGGING BEASTS ATTTAAAAAACKKKKKKK.

In the end, the Soviets got everything they wanted, the US got forever glory and the bigger cock(at least on the surface) and Japan got...errr...cancer and poverty? Yes, it did end the war within days, but ending a war that's already ending is not strategic brilliance.

BTW, the "terms" they were offered was unconditional surrender. Not the most appealing.

Forgive me, but if you intent to propagate an idea, wouldn't it be prudent to fully understand that idea? Otherwise you are just spouting dogma "it is because I was told it was so."

I do understand the idea, but the size and effect(and target) is what makes a particular weapon experiment greater than another. All weapons were experimental at one point, of course, but when the first target is as devastated as it was the idea sticks. I was pointing out why the bombing stuck as an experiment whilst other experiments didn't. The eagerness to launch one as soon as it was made, the unnecessary course of action, the fact that it was struck on what they assumed was a military base but had such a large effect(which would be either hypocritical reasoning or the more human option of them not being aware of the size and effect), and the fact that it was initially suggested to launch them on Kyoto and Tokyo and that the atrocities there could have been ten-fold...The referring to the operation as a succesful experiment, the focusing on the revenge against pearl harbor to support the propaganda(which I do know and am well aware that is encessary during wartime, but its long-term effect on the population is what matters). The fact that the war crimes were attributed to the axis, but not the allies, because the winning side is what decides history. The competition for the bigger cock done measured so. The ability to look back and know the situation there, and the outcome. There are many factors against the late-war bombings whilst the few that are pro-bombings are not that convincing.

The war started in 39, PH was in 41.

Argh. I hate it when I forget something. Meant to say it didn't start for the Americans. >.<. Sorry.

Wouldn't argue that.

Eh, personally I think the US is taking a bit too much shit from that point of view.

Clarification please: It was on purpose that we stood out? You mean we purposely made ourselves stand out more?

Well, yes. Do you not?

I'm not sure how attention span ties into freedom of speech though, can you elaborate?

(side-note: this is true to pretty much all worldwide news at the moment). Scandals, gossip and hate have come to replace important matters. Though that is still part of the freedom of speech, attention keeps going to all the wrong places.

Eh, to a point they are. You have to keep in mind, we have a two party system. Okay yeah, there are other parties technically, but they never win and might as well not be there. The results of this have best been shown recently by the 2004 Bush vs Kerry election. A lot of people didn't want either of them, but they were our choices and thus a lot of people voted not based on who they wanted more, but who they wanted less. We might get to vote, but by and large, it's multiple choice, not free answer. Still better than a lot of places, but it still can and does lead to us getting leaders we don't want, don't like, and wish were different. It's a great system compared to things like dictatorships.

That's true to all democratic states, of course, but unfortunately democracy comes with the side-effect that people will associate a nation's public opinion with a leader's personal one.

3rd actually, by population. 3rd or 4th by area, depending on what you consider as truly part of the country.

Aye, my bad. One of the largest. =).

We've been in our fair share for sure, but I think you underestimate how many wars have been fought. Consider the following
Timeline of major 20th century wars
Biggest wars of the 20th century by death tolls
Major wars of the 20th century

Honestly, we're just more noticeable.

Out of those, how many has America more or less been involved in? And yes, you are more noticeable. That was part of my point earlier.

The first obviously, but also that's a loaded question due to its phrasing, and I have to deny several assumptions that are part of it.

Wasn't calling America a dedicated robber, I was just wanting to point out how general background and time spent in stale-mate(at best) can affect one's view.

Well ouch, are we really seen as contributing so little? Well here, some major technological contributions owed to Americans.

Well, yes. Not much advertising is put into the good sides of America. Then again, not much advertising is put into anyone's good sides these days. (also, the airplanes thing is debated. Though the Wright brothers are by far the most well-known inventors.) so I'll give you that.

Your hypothetically however puts an unfair slant on the actual events. We did not go Muslim hunting after 9/11, we went after Al-Qaeda and those who were actively funding and supporting them to be a terrorist organization. I will admit to having regret, distaste, and some shame at the actions and attitudes of some of my fellow Americans towards Muslims afterwards; it is embarrassing to hear some of the idiots shouting their all encompassing ignorant bigotry. However our military forces were not just rolling into any and all Muslim nations/cities/settlements and indiscriminately killing everyone there. I'm sure we made some mistakes, had bad intel, had mishaps, but we had a designated target, and did our best to limit ourselves to them.

Though going after Al-Qaeda is natural, over the years it has escalated into a general anti-muslim slant. Muslim fundamentalism has escalated particularly in response to this slant, which makes the slant worse, etc. In contrast to the aforementioned situations, instead of having the military at fault you have the people. Given America's important on a social level at this point, whatever starts there is continued in other countries. So yes, though I admit the comparison was a bit extreme(hypothetical situations usually are), just by promoting the action to be of an individual group's sick mindset, you avoid the escalation to such hatred.

This is such a broad generalization that I can't honestly comment back on it. If you could provide examples of of our "liberations" and "bombing for peace" and such, I'll be happy to respond to those.

The general propaganda support during warfare has been to make the country appear as a liberating factor. As I said above, I understand the need of propaganda during warfare, but it does get across to the people. WWII is distant and up to debate of course, but you have more recent events(as I mentioned the Serbian bombings before), to which the main official reason of involvement has been liberation. Then you have the war on terrorism thing. And the Iraq war.

Do you have any site you could link for the details of this, I'd be interested in reading it. Otherwise I just don't know enough to respond in anything but ignorance.

Radio Free Europe and The Voice of America were the free voices for Eastern Europe(now moved on to other things). It would be redundant to not admit their positive effects for the people, and the spread of free information in a time when information was equal to "the dictator says", and to not give them props for the risks they went through distributing this information. Up until the Hungarian revolution in 1956, the Americans were basically a myth, gods to the people here. They kept waiting for the Americans to keep their promises of freedom and help us, but the myth died once the people realized that it will never happen. Over the years, these radio stations kept sending the occasional pro-US messages which helped reshape America as the promised land for all of us. Now, if we're into cold-hard calculation, this was a brilliant move on the US's side. As soon as they could, every single intellectual in the country that managed to flee fled to America. Even now, 20 years after the fall of communism, the greatest minds in the country go there to fulfill their dreams. This has provided the US with much intellectual power, consisting of people that see the land as a paradise and are willing to treat it as such. But the ones who could not flee died dreaming of the promised land, or died trying to go there.
I know this is more of an economic factor than a social one, but Nixon was quite a fan of Romania, in the beginning. (this was during the time where the commie crimes were not of public knowledge), and we were a most-favored country. This was until the human rights issues here were too great to ignore, in the 80s.

If it helps, most Americans think those people are raving loonies. Please, keep in mind that they are a very vocal, very minority. We have over 300 million people in this country, and the majority of them can get online to spout their views worldwide. It's not hard to find at least few people here willing to vocalize any sort of opinion, no matter how factless, twisted, or just plain stupid it might be.

Aye, definitely, but unfortunately the extreme minorities will always be sure to make themselves heard. I should know.

On the contrary, I think me and Fen have been engaged in a very nice and rather thread filling debate.

Me too. See, it can be done

[Pneumonica]

See, something that informed me that I could be a lawyer is that I can engage in heated, dedicated, hard-fought argument, and win, lose, or undecided, still be cool with the person I argued with. It's part of the reason I'll argue over trivial things - it's really not a big issue to me.

Unfortunately, this is a gift which which not everybody has been blessed.

[Iceman]

I am, however, from now ignoring LS's posts, because all they do is actually make my opinion of Americans bad.

Wait. In a debate thread that you started because LS made a commenting about people hating America, you now refuse to listen to what LS has to say? That's... uh... that's not very good debating tactics.

No opinion one way or the other as to whether America sucks or not, but I do know that debating =/= arguing. And essentially, it seems that this thread has devolved into arguing and name calling.

You did see what Styphon did with the thread name, didn't you?

[Radbaron]

Look up ^^^^^^^^^

But unless he did actually mod it to reflect the name on the outside....

[Fen]

He did, I just changed it back

[Gil Hamilton]

His eye on the big picture was indeed there, but it was very clouded. Whether by his own idealism, by his fondness for Stalin or by somehow ignoring the fact that was was best for America was not the best for the world(after all, world peace was his ultimate goal in his collaboration with Stalin...he just somehow failed to see Stalin as the dictator he was) or- most likely- a combination of these factors is up to debate, of course, but the end result is there. His condition at the time of the conferences was also a factor that made the compromises greater. But, looking back, it's hard to tell what was compromise and what was freely given.

You should know that the US very nearly didn't compromise with Stalin. There was a significant movement within the US government and the military, particularly with folks like Patton and LeMay to IMMEDIATELY go to war with the USSR before they had a chance to recover from WW2 and attempt to crush them before they conquered all of Western Europe. The US government most emphatically did not like Stalin, but during WW2, Stalin was at war with Germany and after WW2, it was either let the USSR have Eastern Europe or fight another bloody war without recovering from the last one on the notion that WW2 had left the USSR in worse shape. I would argue that you should probably be glad that that war never happened, because your own country would have been one of the battlegrounds.

Yarr...Japan had started surrender proposals...just with the Soviets instead of the US, in an attempt of at least saving whatever little thing they could save. From their point of view the surrender process had already begun, though the rest of the world didn't get the memo... In a nation that had nothing BUT pride left at that point, taking their time before admitting defeat instead of jumping on their knees and begging for mercy seems reasonable. Biased? Perhaps. Basically, you have these three points of view(extremized, of course).
Japan: Ok, we're losing. Let's try to get the best out of it. Maybe if we wait out they forget! The Soviets seem to be willing to negociate. American scum should hear it from them. We too proud to deal with American scum directly.
Soviets: We have everything moving as we want it to be, get lots land and are making people focus on Japan whilst we get the upper hand. *twirl moustache*.
US: WHY ARE THEY TAKING THEIR TIME THE FRIGGING BEASTS ATTTAAAAAACKKKKKKK.

In the end, the Soviets got everything they wanted, the US got forever glory and the bigger cock(at least on the surface) and Japan got...errr...cancer and poverty? Yes, it did end the war within days, but ending a war that's already ending is not strategic brilliance.

BTW, the "terms" they were offered was unconditional surrender. Not the most appealing.

You don't seem to understand how war works or the historical mindset of the Imperial Japanese. No condition but unconditional surrender could possibly be acceptable with the Empire of Japan. They hadn't surrendered, so the war was still on. In fact, the Empire of Japan wasn't preparing to surrender. The Imperial Japanese Army attempted a coup to prevent the Emperor from announcing that he wasn't willing to fight anymore and the Japanese people themselves were barely aware they were losing until the announcement was made that Japan would surrender unconditionally. This is because the Japanese propaganda apparatus really didn't let them in on facts like that the Imperial Navy had been entirely destroyed and the American blockade would be defeated any day.

What I'm not clear on is why you seem to think that the Pacific Theater of WW2 was Americans bombing the crap out of poor, suffering Japanese. It wasn't because the US needed to prove it had a bigger penis or that we were butthurt over Pearl Harbor. It was because the Empire of Japan was a warmongering group of expansionist bastards who attacked the United States in order to get us to lift the Oil Embargo we put on them. Look at the historical context about WHY the war between the US and Japan happened.

Japan itself has jack for resources and was dependent on the United States for oil in order to produce fuel as of the mid-thirties, the United States at the time being the leading producer of oil. Then the Japanese decide they were going to loot China in a violent racist orgy of rape and murder and kill every mother's son that tried to stop them in a reign of terror that came straight from orders from the Imperial Family (specifically, Prince Asaka who ordered that no Chinese prisoners were to be taken and also Hirohito's order that the Chinese had no rights as prisoners). The Japanese Army treated the Chinese so heinously that John Rabe, a German industrialist who ended up saving 200,000 people in Nanking from being murdered by the Japanese, actually wrote a letter to Hitler pleading Germany to intervene on the Chinese behalf out of human decency that it turned out the Nazi party really didn't have (as Rabe found later found out when they arrested him for complaining about their honorable Japanese allies). In response to this and the unprovoked attack on the USS Panay, the US put Japan under embargo and cut them off from war supplies that they were using to butcher thousands upon thousands of innocent people across East Asia. I think we can at least agree putting Japan under embargo was justified.

It also made war with the United States inevitable. Interesting fact: there are no trees in Korea older than 60 years. You know why? Because the Japanese clear cut them... well, for accuracy, I should say that Koreans were worked to death by the Japanese clear cutting them to produce fuel derived from tree sap for their military. Eventually, the Empire of Japan had two choices; cease expansion or attack the United States with enough force to knock out our Pacific assets so they could negotiate an end to the embargo that was crippling their war machine. They chose the latter and attacked the US at Pearl Harbor and also in the Philippines as part of their conquest there (the Philippines were then US territory). You say that bombings were made in revenge for Pearl Harbor, well, I say they weren't, but if their was revenge, it could have been just as well for what the Japanese did to the US soldiers who surrendered to them. For more, look up the Bataan Death March. Or don't, if you value your lunch.

Given the disposition of the Empire of Japan up to and after that, there could be no conclusion to the war except complete capitulation by the Japanese. If they didn't want their cities burned and their ports blockaded and their ships sunk, here's a thought; perhaps they shouldn't have went on a murderous rampage in an attempt to turn East Asia into vassal states to feed them with resources while working the native peoples to death necessitating our embargo of their country and perhaps they certainly shouldn't have attacked the United States in order to break it. Bad things happen in war and if you don't want them to happen, don't start wars.

I do understand the idea, but the size and effect(and target) is what makes a particular weapon experiment greater than another. All weapons were experimental at one point, of course, but when the first target is as devastated as it was the idea sticks. I was pointing out why the bombing stuck as an experiment whilst other experiments didn't. The eagerness to launch one as soon as it was made, the unnecessary course of action, the fact that it was struck on what they assumed was a military base but had such a large effect(which would be either hypocritical reasoning or the more human option of them not being aware of the size and effect), and the fact that it was initially suggested to launch them on Kyoto and Tokyo and that the atrocities there could have been ten-fold...The referring to the operation as a succesful experiment, the focusing on the revenge against pearl harbor to support the propaganda(which I do know and am well aware that is encessary during wartime, but its long-term effect on the population is what matters). The fact that the war crimes were attributed to the axis, but not the allies, because the winning side is what decides history. The competition for the bigger cock done measured so. The ability to look back and know the situation there, and the outcome. There are many factors against the late-war bombings whilst the few that are pro-bombings are not that convincing.

Or perhaps it was because the crimes of Germany and Japan were so great. If Japan didn't want to be bombed into the ground, it should have surrendered unconditionally before it came to that. They did not. Did they deserve it? I don't know. Why don't you ask someone from China if they think Japan deserved it. Or a Korean. Or a Filipino. Or someone from Vietnam. Or the Dutch East Indies. Or Polynesians. Or the people of Australia who would have suffered invasion had our brave sailors and airmen not defeated the Japanese fleet at Coral Seas. See what they all think about the poor Japanese suffering atrocities at the hands of the mean ole Americans who wouldn't stop bombing them until they agreed to stop looting, raping, and murdering whole countries.

Gadzooks, the destruction of the Empire of Japan and the consequent restructuring of their society into a decent, peaceful one should be something you should respect, and you are acting like we are monsters! I'm PROUD of my grandfather for his service in the US Marines, who did his part honorably, including fighting through the hell that was Iwo Jima because of the cultural aversion the enemy had for throwing down their guns and surrendering when they couldn't win. The Japanese fighting long after they should have waved the white flag was pretty much the theme of their behavior in the Pacific War, so perhaps instead of accusing my country of atrocities you could put the blame where it is due.

And for the record, Kyoto was NEVER bombed during WW2, due to its cultural significance to the Japanese as the seat of the Imperial family. It was never on the list of targets, for the atomic bombs or for any bombing raids.

[Yen sid]

Alright, I let it be know.

I'm Catholic.

Not "Raised Catholic" Not "Sometimey" Catholic. I am honest to goodness Catholic.

So, I been nice (Y'know for someone like me) about it for thr last two years, everybody and their sister seem to think all religious people are idiots beliving in fairytales and that the future is in he hands of man.

Ha. Fat chance.

We live in a world in which a human person is killed but a damn tree is treated to much more sympathy. Babies are killed because they do not resemble the perfect human (No human is perfect by the way all bodies have a slight defect), Actually babies are kill because people are afraid of responsibility and mostly was a harassment free life. Then the whole debate about Abortion. How, pray tell, can a fetus not be considered human? If the child came from a human being than the child is human and deserve the basic human right to live. After all, the one thing all people who support abortion have in common: they were born to make that choice.


I mean, if the Children are the future and we kill off the children what will happen to the future?

Since I'm in the abortion stage let head over to the science section and explained my Cranky issues with that.

People say that Religion is holding Science back and you want to know the truth? It is true. Religion is holding back science from becoming monsters. Believe it or not The only reason Science is even revelant in today's world because back in the dark ages The churchs kept the knowledge in check. They didn't forget about the knowlege! They store it and used it help to people! There is a damn good reason why the earlier Scientists were Monks and Priests.

Also, the whole debate about womens becoming Priests is A-mazing due to the fact no one bothers to look up why this is the way it is.

Women are Nuns because they are to be mothers to the churchs. Men are priests because they are fathers to the church. The one thing that is more important to the Church than anything else is Famiy since a Family can literally change the very nature of the world. Good familes produce good nations, Bad countries produce horrible nations.

That's all I have to say and thankfully I gotten it off my chest.

[TheDude]

You may want to move this to "The Great Debate" thread. As far as I recall the topics you raise are not considered appropriate for the normal forums.

And on a completely unrelated note: Congratulations on the best flame bait of the year.

Yeah, everything moved here... The DAMNed

[GothPoet]

everybody and their sister seem to think all religious people are idiots beliving in fairytales

I never said nor do I believe anything of the sort. I'm an agnostic, but I do respect religion, and peoples' right to believe or not as they see fit. I don't think it's too much to ask for the same courtesy.

What I do resent, aside from being lumped in with the idiots we have on the agnostic/atheist side of the fence who don't respect peoples' right to believe, is the idiots on the other side of the fence who try to force their views on others. It is perfectly possible to live a moral and happy life without religion.

I'm not ranting anymore on this topic, as I've addressed the part I felt I most needed to.

[Azrael]

everybody and their sister seem to think all people are idiots.

Fixed that to fit my World view.

[JVDifferent]

In regards to abortion, "babies" are not killed. Babies are the pink drooling things that cry and try to gurgle their mother or father's name after they've been squirted out of a uterus. Personally, I am okay with less babies and more trees, because we aren't running out of babies any time soon. Widespread deforestation across the planet, however, has been a major contributor to climate change.

There is a significant amount of discrimination in the States, well across the globe I'd wager, against atheists, and the article is a shining example of such. To be perfectly honest, I don't respect religion in the slightest, as I find it is more important to respect my fellow human beings and treat them with dignity.

[Yen sid]

human fetus will become a baby, that is not a theory. So why is it not accepted as a human? What, because you can't hold it as a Baby?

It growns in a human being and it will be come a human being.


Widespread deforestation? What the problem, we can't plant a few hundred thousand trees after chopping some down? A tree can grow back. A human being, someone that can love, be happy, have dreams and fears? Will never come back.

everybody and their sister seem to think all religious people are idiots beliving in fairytales

I never said nor do I believe anything of the sort. I'm an agnostic, but I do respect religion, and peoples' right to believe or not as they see fit. I don't think it's too much to ask for the same courtesy.

.

Meh, My anger isn't directed to Agnostic people. My Anger is more or less directed to people who believe that being religious in today's world is ridiculous while taking care of a tree that can grow back is not.

everybody and their sister seem to think all people are idiots.

Fixed that to fit my World view.

...Well, your namesake IS the Angel of Death. Take that as you will.

[Lighthawk]

human fetus will become a baby, that is not a theory. So why is it not accepted as a human? What, because you can't hold it as a Baby?

It growns in a human being and it will be come a human being.

It's not the potential of the fetus that people are arguing over, it's what it is at that very moment. At what point does it change from being just a collection of cells into a human being? The potential to become a human is always there, but when is it actually a human? I mean technically, every sperm and every egg is a potential human. Looking at that way, every time someone masturbates they committee mass murder. For every living human, there are billions of potential humans that died in their would be mother's uterus when their one lucky brother or sister beat them to the prize. Potentially human just isn't a good enough measurement, because it's frankly far more horrific to really consider that mindset and what it means.

So we come back to trying to define when a fertilized egg transitions from a non-sapient bunch of cells with human potential to actual human being. Which isn't an easy thing at all to do. I think the only way the general public would come to any sort of agreement on that would be if we can prove that souls are real and then pinpoint when a person gets their soul. Admittedly, there's more than a few issues with that.

Widespread deforestation? What the problem, we can't plant a few hundred thousand trees after chopping some down? A tree can grow back. A human being, someone that can love, be happy, have dreams and fears? Will never come back.

I'm not really sure what relevance the trees have, but to start with, it's just not that simple. Even planting one tree to replace every one cut down wouldn't come close to be sufficient, because what's really being lost is time. Trees are not fast growers. Planting enough trees so that we would have a positive net growth would be a truly massive undertaking, and one that would cost a lot of money. And who's going to be paying for that?

And while I agree that a tree isn't comparable to a human life, I think the issue isn't about saving the trees per say, but saving the forests. It's about keeping our environment healthy, about keeping animal species from going extinct, and generally trying to curb our want towards excess because we have a bad habit of living in the now at the expense of the future.

And not to be too cynical, but as far as human beings never coming back...well that's everyone's fate. Every person is indeed special and unique, with their own dreams and lives and feelings. And Every.Single.One will one day die and their uniqueness will be forever lost from the world.

Meh, My anger isn't directed to Agnostic people. My Anger is more or less directed to people who believe that being religious in today's world is ridiculous while taking care of a tree that can grow back is not.

Every group has it's share of loud mouthed idiots who like to pretend they speak for everyone. Whether it's the atheists mocking the religious for embracing superstition instead of science, or the religious mocking the atheists for not having faith, or mocking some other religion for being part of the 'wrong' faith. Don't take them seriously, they're usually too stupid to know better.

[JVDifferent]

Ooooh, there is a thread for this now. Excellent.

One also has to consider the people that get abortions, before demonizing the procedure. Some of them are young girls whom, through circumstances consensual or otherwise, have become pregnant and their bodies are simply too small to carry a developing fetus, and survive. Sure, Cesarian section is an option for getting the fetus out of the uterus, but the developing fetus takes a mindblowing amount of resources from the mother, sometimes more than they are capable of providing and living at the same time. As of yet there is no substitute for a human womb (please correct me if I am wrong and have missed some amazing new invention), so the dilemma is whether to risk the life of one child for the sake of gaining an extra child, or save the existing child's life at the expense of one that does not exist yet.

Other likely candidates for abortion are victims of rape. The idea of being forced to carry the seed of your rapist because it has the potential to grow into a human baby I find abominable, but fortunately most agree that it is.

Others are willing parents who unfortunately conceive a defective fetus. I'm not talking like, "Oh, it's a girl and we wanted a boy" kind of defective, or even "Oh there's a chance it'll be autistic" kind of defective (I'm pretty sure there's been research into screening for autism pre-natally, but I can't remember how complete it is) but rather, there's a hole in its heart. Or it has a single malformed lung or something. Fetuses are not aborted if there is some small detail the parents don't like and then call a defect- seriously, how can you even make out the small details "you might not like" in an ultrasound? They're aborted because they are not going to survive to full term inside the uterus, let alone outside of it- but if they happen to, it will not be for long, and its time outside is most likely going to be painful.

And then, of course, there are women who don't wish to be pregnant yet, but unfortunately it happens to them. Some are victims of abusive relationships, in which the partner sabotages birth control methods to get them pregnant and to gain greater control over them. Others are just unfortunate enough to use a badly manufactured condom or miss a pill and forget about it, some don't even know that birth control is a thing that exists or that sex means a baby will eventually happen (teenagers subjected to abstinence-only education, for example), and will only find out some weeks afterwards when they've missed a period or they've noticed their stomach has stretched out weirdly. Personally, in these cases I don't see how terminating the zygote or fetus in these early stages equates to murder.

Last week I listened to an episode of the Centre for Skeptical Inquiry's weekly podcast, Point of Inquiry, where an atheist, Jen Roth, argued against abortion. I'd certainly recommend giving it a listen to if you have strong feelings on the subject, and wish to learn more about it. Her opinion was less "we have to ban abortion" and more "we should work to rectify the circumstances in which abortions are called for", which I feel is a more sensible approach to the issue.